This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Deep divisions between Islamists and secularists have brought Egypt to the brink of economic and social disaster. That’s the truth but not the whole truth. There are several other fault lines — civilians vs. those in uniform; democrats vs. autocrats; moderate Islamists vs. the ultra orthodox; and displaced beneficiaries of the old order vs. emerging new power brokers.

In the 22 months since the people toppled Hosni Mubarak, there have been dozens of dizzying developments. But three explain the rest.

• The armed forces — the real power behind presidents since the 1950s — retreated only in August, and not fully. They still control parts of the government and a third of the economy through public sector corporations (therefore, a vast patronage network).

• The Islamists won resoundingly in seven elections — one referendum, two rounds each for the two houses of parliament, and two rounds of the presidential contest. The Muslim Brotherhood was the big winner, followed by the conservative Salafists.

• Ranged against them are those referred to as non-Islamists. They include the youth who brought about the revolution; Coptic Christians; secularists (including pious Muslims) who don’t trust the religious to run government; other secularists militantly intolerant of the faithful; crony capitalists, and corrupt civilian apparatchiks, members of the judiciary and others from the old order.

Hovering over this is another divide. The educated, mostly urban, elites are undergoing conniptions about the sudden political and social rise of the rural illiterate hordes. Many seriously argue that such voters can’t be qualified to vote on the constitution and other weighty issues, especially since many may follow their priests’ orders.

The disparate non-Islamist groups have spent much energy trying to sabotage the initiatives of, and institutions controlled by, the newly elected.

They overturned the parliamentary panel drafting the new constitution. They abandoned even the second panel, even though they were given half the seats (despite the long-standing rule that parliamentary panels reflect the composition of the assembly). They have lately been decrying the new constitution as one drafted “solely by the Islamists.” Of course, it was drafted after they picked up their marbles and left.

More scandalously, the courts dismissed the lower house of parliament, on a trumped up technicality.

The army stripped president-elect Mohammed Morsi of his powers. The opposition derided his win, by 52 per cent of the votes cast, as “a very narrow victory.” (It was a bigger margin than Barack Obama’s).

The prosecutor general, a Mubarak nominee, kept derailing trials of former colleagues for corruption and abuses of power.

Morsi’s Nov. 22 decree, claiming vast powers, was prompted by fears that the courts were about to derail the constitution and dismiss the upper house of parliament.

He has since given up some powers but not his popular decision to fire the prosecutor. The retrial of former officials is going ahead. So too the referendum on the constitution, this weekend and next.

He offered to negotiate constitutional amendments with the opposition but it was not interested.

Some want the referendum boycotted, others are urging a No vote. Had they been more principled, they would have had more credibility with the voters.

The constitution is problematic, though it’s not all that different from Anwar Sadat’s 1971 constitution.

His said that “Islam is the religion of the state and the principles of sharia are the main source of legislation.” Sharia already governs family and property matters. But the new draft ties sharia doctrine to “Sunni Islam,” as interpreted by “the majority of Muslim scholars,” raising fears that it could be interpreted any which way.

The new constitution guarantees
freedom of religion for “adiyan al-Samawiyya,” translated
as ‘heavenly religions’ or ‘revealed religions.’ Therefore, it’s not
clear what rights non-Abrahamic faiths would have under the new
constitution

On women’s rights, the draft has as much gobbledygook as the old constitution. It says the state should “guarantee co-ordination between the duties of the woman and her public work,” vs. the old formulation that women are equal “without violating the rules of Islamic jurisprudence.” Many hijabi women oppose this new draft.

The draft concedes too much power to the military — perhaps as quid pro quo to the army staying out of politics or helping the Muslim Brotherhood.

Societies in transition need Nelson Mandelas. Morsi has failed to be a conciliator. In fact, he has polarized Egyptians, notwithstanding the undemocratic machinations of the opposition.

Perhaps much of the turmoil was inevitable. The Arab world’s most populous nation is transiting from decades of authoritarian rule to the near-absence of any rule at this time, toward a yet-to-be-defined new order. But democracy is beginning to show itself, albeit chaotically — forcing various players, from the president down, to bow to public demands, day by day.

If Egypt can weather this turmoil, it will emerge stronger and become a force to contend with.

Clarification: This article was edited from a previous version that said that Egypt’s new constitution,
being voted on in a referendum, restricts freedom of religion to
monotheistic religions, and added: “Thus Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians,
etc., get no rights.”

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com